User talk:EddieSegoura

Welcome

Hello, EddieSegoura, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! (By the way, I've moved your email msg to your user page. You may want to add a spamblock to prevent unwanted email, or simply link like this this) --Viriditas 12:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the same user that Welcomed Me to this wonderful site also thinks I am "sockpuppet", implying that I am really someone else and I have a dozen accounts. This is not true. I only use this account.

Reverts

Aloha, Eddie. I'm sorry if there's been some kind of miscommunication, so I'll give you an upate. I've reverted your changes to Lists of tropical cyclone names because they appeared to be vandalism. I asked you if you had a source on your talk page, but you haven't answered me. Your edits don't appear to be sourced or based on the references on that page, although I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong if you can post a link to your sources. Can you tell me where you got your information from? Take a look at Wikipedia:Cite sources when you have a moment. I also reverted your changes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests (that's not the place for discussion) and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (it looks like you were testing). From what I can tell, [1] you were using Lists of tropical cyclone names as a test page as well. Please remember, testing should be done in the sandbox. Contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. --Viriditas 12:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

That's not Vandalisim, that's Editing

It seems like any change I try on that page is considered "vandalism". Vandalism is deleting the names or putting someone that has nothing to do with hurricanes on the page, I was just putting the 2011 list on that page. The Wearther Hurricane people only have list going up to 2009. It makes no sense to keep the 2005 list up on that page if the season is already over.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

You forgot to list yourself on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page so I've added it for you. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoops. You forgot to answer the three questions so you need to go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura and fill them in as someone else removed it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed that your RfA is not listed on the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship pages. You may want to put it there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I've created a fresh new page but will wait a few days to list it in the Nominations page and give Myself more time for contributions.

Don't patronise me

Don't patronise me and don't accuse me of vandalism. Your article has been deleted again per WP:CSD#A7 — but you're welcome to leave it on your userpage. -Splash^talk 21:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Response To User:Splash: I wasn't aware that the page would drive people like You crazy. The page was an ongoing project and I clearly stated that it's under construction. Deleting a page is considered vandalism unless, of course, the page is full of vulgarity and stuff that has no purpose. I will have to write it on My computer and when it's done, I'll considering posting the finished product. I didn't mean to offend You in anyway by posting that page. How would You feel if I came along and deleted (or if posted a request for deletion) Your page. If You hadn't save it on Your PC, You'd have to spend many hours of hard work writing it again and reposting. I'm sure You'd be upset, wouldn't You?

I wouldn't have posted an article of that nature, so you wouldn't need to delete it. It's worth giving WP:CSD a careful read before you re-post that article again. If you had indeed spent many hours writing it, that would be unfortunate, but sometimes the dirty jobs just have to be done. Deleting a page is not considered vandalism when it is done within policy, which this was. And no, I'm not prepared to debate that point. If you want it debated, you'll need to ask at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Splash^talk 22:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Get the Picture

Did this end up in the right place? It sure doesn't look like a "Wikipedia:" page to me. Friday (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Here is the right link, Friday: Get the Picture BRW, Today is Tuesday :) EddieSegoura 22:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Umm, alright. I've deleted Wikipedia:Get the Picture since it was apparently a mistake? Friday (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Response:Thanks. BTW, how do You delete a page You created?

User talk:Friday: Only administrators can actually delete. I recommend you avoid creating new pages for a bit until you learn more about how things work here.

Response: I've actually been using this site for a long time. I was only when I found out only resigtered users can sign up to become Administrators that I created the account. 24.105.138.40 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Friday: I just deleted Wikipedia:Eddie Segoura. Also, please be careful what you call "vandalism" - good faith editors won't be happy to hear their edits referred to that way.

Response: I didn't mean to create Wikipedia:Eddie Segoura. I was trying edit My own user page. I did try to create Get The Picture, but the title was typed incorrectly and now the correct page is given. EddieSegoura 23:13, November 22, 2005 (UTC)

Exicornt

Hi Bunchofgrapes, I am aware You posted a delete request on a page I submitted. I assume You did this because You might have found the page to be too confusing or probably because You didn't understand the term. I will try to keep to page up to avoid have the page disappear and reappear on the site. Deleting a page will only result in another user reposting, and theirfore I'm trying to fix the page so people can understand what the page is describing. -- EddieSegoura (talk) 7:29 PM, November 22, 2005 (EST)

Why would deleting the page only result in another user reposting it? I think the only people who would recreate this page are ones who are familiar with the word "Exicornt", and I don't think there are too many of those. If they would all simply read about some very important Wikipedia policies, I'm sure the page would remain deleted. Some policies for these people to look at at include:

• What Wikipedia Is NOT
• No Original Research
• Verifiability
• Avoid Neologisms (This is a guideline and not a policy, true, but it basically is a special case of Verifiability, one very applicable to Exicornt.)

Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Eddie you are making some very disturbing edits. Why did you edit BMT Sea Beach Line with a summary of "The term 'exicornt' was spelled incorrently." whereas the word never even existed on that page prior to that edit? Are you trying to fool users who have that page on their watchlist? Also why are most of your major edits labelled a minor edit? Don't you think that these types of edit summaries could be a little misleading?? David D. (Talk) 01:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The page was revised today. While the Exicornt page is being debated, the switched will be called 'crossover switches' to avoid further confusion.

Hi Eddie, you mentioned on my talk page that "just because [I] don't know the word doesn't mean it doesn't exist." That's true. However, you need to understand something about the way Wikipedia works. You need to be able to demonstrate that the word exists; we don't just accept it on your say-so. (This is described on the page Wikipedia:Verifiability.) If a word is currently only used by a small group of people, it's not established enough to be a Wikipedia subject. FreplySpang (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I notice you've made some changes to people's comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt. Don't do that, even if it's a minor change like fixing a typo. Especially don't change comments because you think they're wrong. Changing people's comments is considered to be vandalism and it can get you blocked temporarily from contributing. FreplySpang (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

Eddie, I've reverted your new request because you have to create an entirely new page; you can't just write over an old, archived request. That said, I'd recommend that you don't put in another request just yet. You weren't opposed by the community due to any misunderstandings; you were opposed because you don't have the minimum requirements that almost everyone expects out of an admin candidate. I recommend that you spend a few months learning Wikipedia policies, getting used to editing, participating in Requests for adminship (as a reader and voter, rather than a candidate), and then throw your hat in the ring again. Good luck. —Cleared as filed. 04:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: I tried to tell everyone that I've been editing these page with an accoutn for a while and would like to try again. If the second try is unsucessful then I will try agin next month. After all, I can't get promoted if I simply resign and don't try again. I did repost the second try. Please tell Me the right way to reqest again, because I don't know how. EddieSegoura 04:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

In response to your question, if you do choose to ignore my advice (perfectly reasonable, I suppose), the request will have to have a new name, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EddieSegoura 2. But don't keep modifying the archived request that has already been closed. Thanks. —Cleared as filed. 04:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, we did understand what you were saying — that you edited without an account before and so that should make up for a lack of edits on this account. There weren't any misunderstandings. The problem was that the community didn't buy it. If you're not willing to show us what those edits were, there's no way for us to judge your readiness for adminship. In addition, the trouble you've had with articles being deleted and even your difficulty posting your Request for adminship has indicated a lack of proficiency with the Wiki software. If you post another request, it will immediately be opposed and closed quickly like the first one. Again, I recommend waiting a few months until you have some edits under your belt with this account. There's no race for adminship, and there are a lot of things you can do to help without admin powers. —Cleared as filed. 04:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: Yeah, but when I first posted the request, I didn't state that I had prevoius edits under IP addresses. I think that if other users (besides the handful that voted) see the edits, I might have a shot. I'll be more then happy to show them to You. If someone tries to close the second try, I will wait until next month, but let's see what happens with the second attempt. EddieSegoura 05:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, good luck. To be upfront and honest with you, I will still have to oppose your nomination based on your apparently limited knowledge of how Wikipedia works. —Cleared as filed. 05:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: Well, I can't force You to support Me, but I have a question, exactly how many edits do You need to get a promotion? Does it cost anything? EddieSegoura 05:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There are no edit limits "set in stone," but I would say that you should have at least 3 months and 1,000 edits before you'll be taken seriously in an RfA, unless there is something really special about the edits you have so far. And no, it doesn't cost anything. I don't mean any offense, but that question ("does it cost anything?") is a symptom of why I can't support your RfA. You just don't have enough experience and knowledge with Wikipedia yet. If you spend a few months helping the project and building trust amongst your fellow editors, it will be no problem becoming an admin further down the line. —Cleared as filed. 05:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: I get Your point, but why can't we count edits before I created the account?

• We can. But, if you're not willing to post on your RfA the IP #s under which you edited, then we don't have a means of reviewing those edits. Even if you did, unless it was a static IP people would not view you well most likely. I agree with what's been said above by others; stick around for a few months, learn how the Wikipedia software works, and get some serious editing done using this account. There really is no race to being an admin. It's not badge of honor, it's not sign that you're a great Wikipedia. All it means is that you'll have extra responsibilities for which you will, at times, get a lot of heat for, get no pay for, and it won't make it any easier to do the things you say you want to do as an admin (according to your first RfA). Also, please note that second attempts at an RfA are not viewed well by most if they are placed within a month of the first failed RfA. Be patient. --Durin 13:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Eddie

Eddie, we've never talked, and I've only seen you from your two RfA's. But that's what I'm here to ask about. Why Eddie? Why do you keep running, you won't become an admin for at least 3 months from now. That's most people's basing for time here. It doesn't matter if you were using an IP for a long time. Also the edit count is usually 2000. I'm just trying to help you, but why are you doing this? Because it's all a lot of effort for a failure, and that could cause you stress, and you could be a great user, and we wouldn't want you to succumb to stress. Just wait Eddie, wait 3 months, do lots of GOOD edits, and then it might happen for you. Quentin Pierce 01:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Quentin. I did create the second page but I didn't list it yet. I'm going to try and make a few good edits, then I'll list the page when I feel I'm ready. I know that if I try to list again, it will get bombarded by negative votes. So yeah, I agree to wait at least a few weeks. EddieSegoura 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Eddie. Just to let you know that an admin has closed your second RfA, so if you do (and it is strongly advised you don't, at least for quite a while) wnt another RfA you'll need a new one.

One more thing, regarding your vote on HorsePunchKid's RfA, please read WP:POINT. Cheers. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 02:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay Eddie, I still think you should wait more than a few weeks. I think you should either wait 3 months or atleast until 2006. I'm just trying to help you out. Because you could really be a good admin, but you can't just keep running every so often just because you want to be one a lot. I do too, I want to be an admin, but it will never happen for me. I guess I'm not what their looking for. Just don't try for awhile, just let all this blow over, and wait until 2006, and keep editing a lot during that time. Get involved in projects, vandalism reverting, welcoming, being nice, stuff like that. Then I'm sure the next time you'd run, you'd pass. So just wait, I'm not yelling or anything or scolding you for trying and wanting to do good for wikipedia. I just want to make sure that you understand why it just won't happen for awhile, even if you did do many edits as an anon IP. If you keep on editing and working hard, I'll make sure to keep in touch Eddie. Quentin Pierce 04:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: I created that page for the purpose of putting it up when I was ready. I never listed in in the nominations page. I'm sorry if it confused You. I will repost the page whenever I am ready. It might not be right this minute, but sometime around Christmas. EddieSegoura 04:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

C'mon Eddie, don't try at Christmas, please. Just wait 3 months, and work hard doing good edits, learn all the rules of wikipedia and how things work, meet other wikipedians and establish relationships and work with them. It'll be a lot of effort for you to become an admin, Eddie, but it'll be worth it. So just work hard, and just take it one day at a time. Quentin Pierce 04:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: If the minimum requrement is 3 months, I'll wait. But if other things are taked into account such as the number of edits, which is growing already, I'll do it whenever feel I'm ready. Let Me ask You: Did You try to get promoted? EddieSegoura 05:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Eddie, a few things. Please learn Wiki markup and avoid using html in posts? Secondly, most people have an aedit threshold of 1500-2000 edits before they vote yes. Also, most want a user who's been registered and editing actively with good edits for 3 or 4 months. Also, please don't change titles, even on your own talk page, some view it as vandalism. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 05:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, at the rate I am going, I will reach 1500 edits withing the 3 month period

I did try to get promoted, a little over a month ago. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Private Butcher, it was going to fail so I had it pulled. It didn't work out of course, and I assume that if it didn't work then, it never will. Also, Eddie, if you want to help me out, go to Simple English Wikipedia, I work there as well as here, and I would appriciate it if you helped me out there. If you don't want to, that's okay. Quentin Pierce 06:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Also Eddie, I want to try to help you, many users think you're either a sockpuppet or an "unfit" user. I want to help you, if you accept, I will be a "wiki-mentor" of sorts, and I will help you become a great user. If you don't want my help, then that's okay, I just think you could contribute a lot to wikipedia, if you let me help you. Quentin Pierce 07:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Eddie, I apologise for being a bit difficult to start with. I had some problems with your edit summarries in that at first appearance it looked like you might be trying to deceive. However the fact you did no try to edit war and compromised with crossover showm to me at least, that you are editing in good faith. Listen to Quentin hi advice sounds good. Definitely wait for a few months not weeks. From what I have seen those that wish to be admins too soon rarly, if ever?, get it. If you need any help I'll be happy to help David D. (Talk) 07:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate anyones help. I'm trying to be an active member of Wikipedia so I can get the promotion I am striving to achieve. I know it will take a while, but unless their is a limit as to how many time You can sign up, I'll try when I'm ready. I can see My lise of edits is growing and at the rate I'm going, I should hit 100 by the end of next week. Happy Thanksgiving EddieSegoura 00:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Eddie, when you use the term "promotion", I think you misunderstand what being an admin is about. It is not a reward for good work, it is merely a way of giving extra responsibilities and a few extra powers to some editors who have shown the community that they understand what wikipedia is about and have shown that they can be trusted to perform a few admin tasks without abusing the extra authority. First and foremost, an admin is still an editor. I have also been turned down for an admin on my first attempt. I have spent the 2 months since then learning more about how the community works and I may re-apply some time next year, but I am not holding my breath. I am participating in the community by participating in article for deletion, requests for adminship votes and other community-related tasks that don't require adminship. Being a good editor is much more important than becoming an admin. Another way you can help is to visit Wikipedia:Requested articles or Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year and create a new article about some area that you have knowledge. Good luck! --Rogerd 01:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for Adminship/EddieSegoura

Aloha, Eddie. I've moved your RfA-in-progress test page to your user space where it belongs. You can find it at User:EddieSegoura/sandbox. --Viriditas 07:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exicornt

Eddie, you can only vote once. Please combine your votes into one or remove the votes from one and merely indicate that its a Comment. Also, remember to sign your edits with four tildes (see the welcome message at the top). --Viriditas 07:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I originally voted to keep the page outright, but it seems that a merge makes more sense. I put the vote to show I'm a little annoyed many people feel that page is useless. The word not being in their volcabulary is not enough to justify removal to the point where it's illegal to respost.

WikiProjects

Eddie, I think you might be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway and Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City. --Viriditas 08:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If you do join Tropical Cyclones, I'm sure Jdorje, Hurricanehink, Michelle T and mysef will be glad to help you. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Response: Well, based on the fact that I did edit a page in the NYC Subway section, I'm willing to start working on Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Subway. I might be able to the the Tropical Cyclones, but for some reason, people got annoyed when I tried to predict what names would be retired when with list gets reused in 2011. --EddieSegoura 7:42 AM, November 24, 2005 (EST)

Eddie, please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot predict what names get retired. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 13:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, NSLE! We all know devastating Katrina and Wilma were. Their is no chance of those names being used again in 2011. The best replacemant names I could find were Kendrix and Whitney. -- EddieSegoura 7:19 PM, November 24, 2005 (EST)

Eddie, it doesnt matter how devastating they were. It is Wikipedia policy. Being very honest, I would not keep my hopes up of doing well in any further RfA if you continue to violate WP policies. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No. No guessing of what retired names, no guessing of replacement names. We cannot PREDICT anything. We are not a crystal ball. I'd avise you read all of Wikipedia's policies. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 00:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

No source for Image:Exicornt.jpg

Eddie, the image Image:Exicornt.jpg that you uploaded does not have any source and copyright information associated with it. Since we can not currently verify its copyright status, it will be deleted seven days from now. To avoid this, please provide source and copyright information for the image on it's information page (select the image link above and edit the page). All the best, --Durin 13:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Eddie, please put comments on peoples talk pages not their user pages. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I've put it on Durin's talk page for you. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Kings Highway

I get your point, however there was very little in the article to begin with, and having little or no context or not actually laying any claim to notability is a reason for speedy deletion - just because it's a shopping area doesn't automatically qualify it as being notable enough for an encyclopedia, imo. -- Francs2000 00:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put it their because just because it's a major shopping area. I put it their because it serve as a well known location in Brooklyn where people usually meet. I will have write the ideas on My computer before I repost. Why waist Your time deleting? Happy Thanksgiving 69.112.54.11 01:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)